This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Overseas Territories, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Overseas Territories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British Overseas TerritoriesWikipedia:WikiProject British Overseas TerritoriesTemplate:WikiProject British Overseas TerritoriesBritish Overseas Territories articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject South America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to South America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject South AmericaTemplate:WikiProject South AmericaSouth America articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
The article currently seems to have two narratives (one pro-American and one anti-American) presented side-by-side, with no further critical analysis. It would be good if someone with more knowledge of the topic than me could clear up the contradictions. IgnorantArmies(talk)12:48, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[1] A lot of unsourced content was added on 16/5/2016. I've removed it to leave the sourced content, though it does appear to put a certain spin on events and could be improved. I will put that on my to do list. WCMemail07:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The United States did not occupy the islands and they were successfully expelled. I do not see where is the victory that they claim to boast. Could it be that they do not like to admit defeat 190.151.175.211 (talk) 19:39, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The United States' aims were not to occupy the Islands; they were to free the imprisoned American sailors and to detain those responsible for their imprisonment. They weren't expelled, but left after achieving their goals and destroying the colony; they never even faced any resistance since Brisbane and his men surrendered immediately on contact, and the Argentinian government never had the chance to respond militarily. Also it may please you to know that Brisbane and the 6 others captured were British mercenaries. UncleBourbon (talk) 09:16, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Brisbane was not a mercenary, he was Luis Vernet's deputy, the six others were officers in the settlement. None were military. Also whether the colony was destroyed is contested, Duncan reports destroying the powder store and spiking the guns, it was only later that Vernet claimed significant damage - but he was also offered tax free status if he could establish a colony within 3 years. BTW I simply ignored the OP as the usual nonsense provoked by blind nationalism, its best just to ignore those type of comment. WCMemail09:22, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
